Hall v. Lynch

Filing 17

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE. Habeas Answer or Dispositive Motion due by 11/8/2021. The Clerk of Court shall serve, by electronic mail, a copy of this order and a Magistrate Judge Jurisdiction consent form on the Attorney General of the State of California at [e-mail]. The Clerk also shall serve a copy of this order on Petitioner by regular mail. Signed by Judge Robert M. Illman on 09/09/2021. (rmilc2S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/9/2021)Any non-CM/ECF Participants have been served by First Class Mail to the addresses of record listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF)

Case 1:21-cv-03352-RMI Document 17 Filed 09/09/21 Page 1 of 3

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

NATHANIEL V. HALL,
Petitioner,

8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

Case No. 21-cv-03352-RMI
ORDER FOR RESPONDENT TO
SHOW CAUSE

v.
JEFF LYNCH,
Respondent.

12
13

Petitioner, a California prisoner, filed a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant

14

to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The original petition was dismissed with leave to amend, and Petitioner has

15

since filed an amended petition. (Dkt. 16).
BACKGROUND

16
17

On June 25, 2012, Petitioner was convicted of aggravated mayhem, corporal injury on a

18

cohabitant, resisting a police officer and violating a protective order. People v. Hall, H038706,

19

2013 WL 6780572, at *1 (Cal. Ct. App. Dec. 23, 2013). The California Court of Appeal affirmed

20

the judgment. See Hall, 2013 WL 6780572, at *1. The California Supreme Court denied review on

21

March 19, 2014. See People v. Hall, Case No. S215928. Petitioner filed several habeas petitions in

22

state court that were denied. (Dkt. 16 at 3). He contends that he is entitled to a later start date of

23

the statute of limitations due to discovering new evidence and equitable tolling due to mental

24

illness. Id. at 1-3, 7. This issue may be explored further if Respondent files a motion to dismiss.
DISCUSSION

25
26

Standard of Review

27

This court may entertain a petition for writ of habeas corpus “in behalf of a person in

28

custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court only on the ground that he is in custody in

Case 1:21-cv-03352-RMI Document 17 Filed 09/09/21 Page 2 of 3

1

violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a); Rose v.

2

Hodges, 423 U.S. 19, 21 (1975). Habeas corpus petitions must meet heightened pleading

3

requirements. McFarland v. Scott, 512 U.S. 849, 856 (1994). An application for a federal writ of

4

habeas corpus filed by a prisoner who is in state custody pursuant to a judgment of a state court

5

must “specify all the grounds for relief available to the petitioner . . . [and] state the facts

6

supporting each ground.” Rule 2(c) of the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases, 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254.

7

“‘[N]otice’ pleading is not sufficient, for the petition is expected to state facts that point to a ‘real

8

possibility of constitutional error.’” Rule 4 Advisory Committee Notes (quoting Aubut v. Maine,

9

431 F.2d 688, 689 (1st Cir. 1970)).
Legal Claims

11

United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

As grounds for federal habeas relief, Petitioner alleges: (1) that new evidence demonstrates

12

a violation of due process and his actual innocence; and (2) that his trial counsel was ineffective.

13

Liberally construed, these claims are sufficient to require a response.
CONCLUSION

14
15

The Clerk of Court shall serve, by electronic mail, a copy of this order and a Magistrate

16

Judge Jurisdiction consent form on the Attorney General of the State of California at

17

[e-mail]. The Clerk also shall serve a copy of this order on Petitioner by

18

regular mail. Respondent can view the Petition on the electronic docket (dkts. 1, 16).

19

Respondent shall file with the court and serve on Petitioner, within fifty-six (56) days of

20

the issuance of this order, an answer conforming in all respects to Rule 5 of the Rules Governing

21

Section 2254 Cases, showing cause why a writ of habeas corpus should not be granted.

22

Respondent shall file with the Answer and serve on Petitioner a copy of all portions of the state

23

trial record that have been transcribed previously and that are relevant to a determination of the

24

issues presented by the Petition.

25
26
27
28

If Petitioner wishes to respond to the Answer, he shall do so by filing a Traverse with the
court and serving it on Respondent within twenty-eight (28) days of his receipt of the Answer.
Respondent may file a motion to dismiss on procedural grounds in lieu of an Answer, as
set forth in the Advisory Committee Notes to Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases.
2

Case 1:21-cv-03352-RMI Document 17 Filed 09/09/21 Page 3 of 3

1

If Respondent files such a motion, it is due fifty-six (56) days from the date this order is entered.

2

If a motion is filed, Petitioner shall file with the court and serve on Respondent an opposition or

3

statement of non-opposition within twenty-eight (28) days of receipt of the motion, and

4

Respondent shall file with the court and serve on Petitioner a reply within fourteen (14) days of

5

receipt of any opposition.

6

Petitioner is reminded that all communications with the court must be served on

7

Respondent by mailing a true copy of the document to Respondent’s counsel. Petitioner must keep

8

the court informed of any change of address and must comply with the court’s orders in a timely

9

fashion. Failure to do so may result in the dismissal of this action for failure to prosecute pursuant
to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). See Martinez v. Johnson, 104 F.3d 769, 772 (5th Cir.

11

United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

1997) (Rule 41(b) applicable in habeas cases).

12
13

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: September 9, 2021

14
15
ROBERT M. ILLMAN
United States Magistrate Judge

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3